Why Eldar Ryazanov shot two "Ironies of Fate, or With a light steam!"

Did you know that the most famous New Year's movie — "The Irony of Fate, or With a light steam!" — exists in two versions? No, the plot and the denouement are the same in them, there is no alternative ending. But nevertheless they differ. Intrigued? Then welcome to the cut — you will learn the history of the creation of two versions of this film and how they differ.

You won't believe it, but the story of the creation of "Irony of Fate" began again with a play that Ryazanov and Braginsky wrote back in 1968 for earnings. They wrote exclusively for theaters. The play had to have a minimum of scenery and very few actors — so that provincial theaters would snatch it up. The plot was based on a real story that Nikita Bogoslovsky told them — about a man who, on December 31, after a bath, looked in for a couple of minutes to friends. There they drank to the holiday. In general, this poor fellow woke up on the luggage rack in the carriage of the Kiev train, where his friends loaded him for the sake of laughter. When he got on the platform in Kiev, not understanding anything, he had only a bath broom, a bag with dirty laundry and 15 kopecks of money.

Source: LiveJournal/dubikvit

The comedy really caught the eye in the province — more than a hundred theaters took up the production. However, this did not affect the capital's theaters at all. In Moscow, it was staged only by the theater of the deaf and dumb. The play could have remained on the stage if not for a sad event. In 1974, Braginsky had a heart attack. The literary duo broke up, and Ryazanov decided to switch completely to filming. And put on a movie about a tipsy doctor.

What did it take to transform a theatrical play into a screenplay? Reduce dialogs to a minimum and maximize the places of action. For entertainment. This is a common practice. But Ryazanov realized that in this case the plot would suffer greatly. In the film, it was important to show not what is happening, but how it is happening. How mutual hostility between the main characters gradually develops into love through sympathy for each other.

Ryazanov understood: it is impossible to cut. We need to shoot a two-part picture. When shortening, there was a threat of coarsening and simplifying the main lyrical line.

But Mosfilm didn't like the idea. Two episodes of a comedy about the love affairs of a drunken doctor? Who's going to watch it?! Goskino refused. And then Ryazanov decided to apply to Gosteleradio. TV has always loved multi-part films. And since these two organizations competed strongly, after learning that the director was refused a production in the State Cinema, television gave the go-ahead.

I will not talk about how the shooting took place, the actors were selected, the songs were written today. I have already told you something, and I will tell you something else another time. Let's go straight to the end of the story.

Filming ended on May 6, 1975. Another couple of months were spent on the installation of two series of paintings. And for another six months the film was waiting for the premiere — they decided to show the New Year's story in the New Year. These six months were very difficult for Ryazanov. The editors slammed the film as immoral and defaming the Soviet man. There were fears that the painting would fall on the shelf. But on January 1, 1976, the whole country saw the film. The effect was incredible. Mountains of letters of praise and telegrams! And requests to repeat the show.

In Goskino, they tore their hair — how could they give such a successful project to television! And they made an unprecedented decision — after two screenings of the film on television to make a rental version of the picture.

But the film still seemed to them very long and drawn out. And Ryazanov was instructed to rewire the film. As a result, the rental version turned out to be 30 minutes shorter. A cartoon intro was cut out of it.

And the title with the famous mistake.

Two songs were cut ("No one will be in the house" at the beginning and "Something is happening to me" at the end). There is no dog in the elevator in this version of the movie.

And companies with bayan.

Ippolit's arrival on the Neva ice.

Nadia's taxi rides.

The scenes with Nadia's mom are completely cut out.

And the dialogues of Lukashin with his mother are noticeably cut.

And most importantly, the dialogues of the main characters are badly cut. There is no story about Pavel and Ira, there is no dialogue between Lukashin and Ippolit under the Christmas tree on the street (frankness for frankness).

But some minor points have been added. For example, Gali's arrival in Lukashin's empty apartment or Nadia's approach to her house after a walk in Leningrad.

But the most interesting thing is the re—sounding of some moments. Particularly attentive viewers could notice that in some places of the well-known version of the film, Lukashin's speech does not always coincide with the articulation of the lips. Haven't you noticed? Look carefully at this fragment.

See? Judging by his lips, Lukashin wasn't talking about Baikal. Do you want to know about what? You are welcome! In the film version, Ryazanov inserted the original voice acting.

Or here's another example at the end of the movie.

Also a little bit wrong. That's what Lukashin actually told his friends.

Back in the film version, Nadia's mistake was corrected when the teacher of Russian language and literature says that she forgot to "put on" a festive dress.

Well, one more thing. Since the whole scene with Nadia's mom was cut out, accordingly, the scene with the throwing out of the train ticket did not get into the film. Therefore, this phrase…

...was also re-voiced.

But in the end, the film lost a lot. It turned out what Ryazanov was afraid of at the beginning of work on the painting. The film version came out crumpled, the rhythm was broken in it. Biographies of the heroes, character conflicts turned out to be undisclosed.